[Updates continue, in the comment thread.]
Now this would be really interesting, if it led anywhere:
Incensed opposition parties are threatening to topple Stephen Harper’s Conservative minority and have begun informally exploring the idea of cobbling together a governing coalition.
The Liberals are taking the prospect so seriously that some MPs are privately discussing ways to dump Leader Stéphane Dion without waiting for their party’s scheduled May 2 leadership vote.*
Sources say NDP Leader Jack Layton has cancelled a trip Friday to Vancouver to take part in the opposition talks, which went on through much of Thursday.
The machinations followed the release of the fall fiscal update.
Finance Minister Jim Flaherty tables the government’s fiscal update in the House of Commons on Thursday, Nov. 27.
The Liberals, NDP and Bloc Québécois said they can’t support the plan because it offers no stimulus package to deal with the economic crisis.
It also contains a poison pill – a vow to scrap public subsidies for political parties that would financially cripple every party except the Tories.
[continue at original source, The Globe and Mail]
I will be surprised if it leads anywhere (other than simply to negotiations over the content of the fiscal plan). But definitely interested.
Finally, some constitutional matters of interest:
Traditionally, the governor general is bound to take the advice of a prime minister to call an election when a government is defeated. But historian Michael Behiels said Gov. Gen. Michaëlle Jean wouldn’t have much choice but to give a coalition a chance given that the last election was just over a month ago.
* Elsewhere in the news story, it is noted that neither the Bloc Quebecois nor the NDP would participate in any coalition with the Liberals if it meant Dion would be PM.
Thanks to Tom R. for the tip
I could not disagree more strongly with the article’s idea of what the governor-general should do.
My understanding of the Westminster conventions is that defeated prime ministers do not get elections if an alternative government can be formed in the incumbent parliament.
Where that parliament has been so recently elected, and the opposition has a strong argument that the government lacks a mandate for these proposals, not having raised them during the campaign, the governor-general should call for the leader of the opposition. Harper would be inviting a replay of the King-Byng crisis.
Sir Paul Hasluck, a former governor-general of Australia, wrote in 1979:
Note that Hasluck was writing after the Whitlam dismissal. Forsey agrees with Hasluck, although some more recent Canadian writers do not. The problem with the recent Canadian position is that it makes a government immortal. If a prime minister cannot be dismissed and cannot be refused a dissolution than Stephen Harper is prime minister for life.
Westminster being Westminster, the rules exist only in the bosom of the Crown and we poor humans, Globe and Mail journos included, cannot read them anywhere.
Seed planted by Alan — 28 November 2008 @ 20:20
That story is a day old, MSS, and on a day like this one, that matters a lot. This is the latest.
Seed planted by Idealistic Pragmatist — 28 November 2008 @ 21:33
Today’s Globe and Mail has an authoritative comment:
Louis Massicotte, an expert in governmental affairs who has advised the Chief Electoral Officer, said Friday that “there is an overwhelming case for an election not to be granted in the present circumstances.”
If the Conservative government is defeated the week after next, that will be during the first sittings of the new Parliament, he said.
“I have literally dozens of precedents on my side taken from British history and from Canadian history and the parliamentary history in the Canadian provinces,” Mr. Massicotte said. “They suggest that whenever a government is defeated during the first sittings of a new Parliament, the practice is that there will be no election.”
This is obvious; otherwise a Prime Minister defeated in the House right after an election could keep calling election after election until he liked the outcome.
The real question in Canada now is not the powers of the Governor-General; the question is, will the Bloc give the Liberals and the NDP sufficient assurance of external support to allow them to form a stable government? If not, they would be unlikely even to try. My fearless prediction: yes, they will.
Seed planted by Wilf Day — 29 November 2008 @ 10:16
In the update referred to previously, one key passage is:
Also:
And, perhaps a bit more surprisingly:
Of course, this story is now two days old. I will count on my propagators to continue keeping the orchard up to date!
Seed planted by MSS — 30 November 2008 @ 14:13
Surprise, surprise: Harper is making adjustments to try to save his premiership.
Unfortunately, that article gets matters somewhat incorrect when it says that these are Harper’s latest moves to stave off an opposition attempt to create an alternative to his “newly re-elected minority government.”
Uh, no, by definition, minority governments in parliamentary democracies are not reelected. Only parliament is; the government that had the (presumed) confidence of the previous parliament is really only a caretaker until such time as it proves it has the confidence of the new one.
An important related item:
Conservatives scrap plan to cut party subsidies
Seed planted by MSS — 30 November 2008 @ 14:38
It’s important to remember that this game is played on more than one level.
The Conservatives’ scrapping of subsidies of parties was not an initiation but a counter-move to the backlash they were anticipating from the opposition parties. They knew that the Bloc and NDP had been conspiring together since late in the writ period. Also, the Cons had spent so long damaging the Liberals and Dion in the last parliament, and with a lame duck opposition leader with little to lose, the Tories knew they wouldn’t continue to automatically get Liberal support (or alternatively, the Bloc’s). So gaining opposition support would require a big carrot or stick. The stick was making the opposition look bad by demanding the subsidies. The carrot, if necessary, would be backing down on scrapping the subsidies. Only one party had to blink.
None blinked. The Cons badly miscalculated, in two ways.
1) The media entirely went against scrapping the subsidies, ignoring Coyne. I would bet that internal polling flipped from positive to negative very strongly. The problem with previous polls is that most people didn’t understand the subsidies, but now the majority of voters know that their preferred parties will lose out. The Cons now realize that they have a stick that is only good for beating themselves, and have moved to delay or drop it unilaterally. And so now they have neither stick nor carrot.
2) Conquering requires dividing the opposition. The Cons, used to backing the opposition into a corner, backed them into the wrong corner. The other parties are so dependent on public subsidies that the measure meant medium-term death. Coalition is always better than death.
So coalition it is.
It will be interesting to see how long it lasts.
If you’re Dion, your personal best move is to get a budget passed, but then peeve a partner enough to get dissolution before the Liberal leadership convention scheduled for May. The Tories will grant dissolution, since they will prefer to face Dion rather than Ignatief. The only problem with this plan is that Dion may not be selfish enough to put himself ahead of his party.
For the NDP, just having cabinet ministers is a tremendous coup. They will want a coalition to last, and for members to gain experience.
So the coalition will dissolve when the Liberals do something the Bloc can’t swallow. With Dion at the helm, it may be something delightful.
Seed planted by Ross Trusler — 01 December 2008 @ 03:49
Why is it the Transport Minister making an announcement about the rules for subsidising political parties?
Seed planted by Tom Round — 01 December 2008 @ 06:37
Canadian coalition looking more likely
Canadian parties have little experience with coalitions, but they evidently are respecting Gamson’s Law.
Scion grafted by Fruits and Votes — 01 December 2008 @ 13:26
Only parliament is; the government that had the (presumed) confidence of the previous parliament is really only a caretaker until such time as it proves it has the confidence of the new one.
At the outset of each parliament the queen/ governor-general/ governor/ lieutenant-governor/ commissioner/ administrator delivers a throne speech drafted by the government. (For some reason it is never called a throne speech n Australia). The throne speech is actually the direct ancestor of the state of the union speech in the US. Traditionally, parliament tests its confidence in the government by moving an amendment to the address-in-reply that parliament sends in answer to the throne speech.
Prof George Winterton told the 1999 constitutional convention what happens next:
Note that ‘not react terribly well’ is prolly viceregal for ‘find advisers who would tender advice I could accept’.
Tom and I deserve congratulations for not yet mentioning the Bjelke-Petersen resignation.
Seed planted by Alan — 01 December 2008 @ 18:33
> “… the Bjelke-Petersen resignation…”
Live by the unaccountable discretionary reserve powers of the Crown, die by the unaccountable discretionary reserve powers of the Crown.
Seed planted by Tom Round — 01 December 2008 @ 20:17